Has Kevin Rudd burned young voters?

Many young people took to the streets to voice their disapproval of Labor's hardline asylum seeker shift, but the ones that Kevin Rudd is chasing are more likely to make their voices heard at the ballot box, writes Julia Holman.

The 21-year-old said he did it in response to Kevin Rudd's "lurch to the north" on asylum seeker policy, which will send anyone who arrives by boat to Papua New Guinea for processing and resettlement. The politics student said a Labor election win should not come at the cost of "the lives and futures of human beings".

Kevin Rudd wants voters like Patrick. Just hours after being reinstated as Labor Party leader, he told the youth of Australia that he needed their energy, ideas and enthusiasm so that the Labor Party could once again "cook with gas".

Well, Patrick's energy and enthusiasm has now been turned against the Labor Party. But the question is, are there many more like him who will decide that Labor's clamp down on boat arrivals is a step too far?

Public protests sprang up in opposition to Labor's drastic change to asylum seeker policy just hours after Kevin Rudd made his announcement. Marches were held in cities around the country, and more are planned for the coming days.

Refugee advocate and barrister Jessie Taylor, 30, spoke at the Melbourne protest. She says that many of the people who were there weren't just the "usual suspects" who reliably turn up at marches about asylum seekers.

She believes there were a number of young people there who were attending their first protest. Greens leader Christine Milne agrees, and says she thinks a more organised campaign against the policy will develop.

Social media is always an interesting, if unscientific, method of gauging the mood. On triple j Hack's Facebook page, there was more feedback on this issue than just about any other we have posted before.

One woman wrote that she applied to join the Labor Party the day before this policy announcement was made, and emailed the day after to withdraw her application. Others said Labor's decision made them feel as though there is no party left to vote for. We have had lots of people say that they are now considering a donkey vote or not even going on the electoral roll.

The view among Young Labor is split, with some members pleased the policy will deter people taking the dangerous boat journey, but others wanting a more compassionate approach.

Young Labor president Kerrie Kahlon says the PNG solution goes against the spirit of the UN refugee convention, and she would rather a policy that processes asylum seekers and settles refugees on the Australian mainland.

Andrew Hughes is an academic at the Australian National University, doing a PhD in political messaging and advertising. He believes Labor's announcement will push some younger voters in inner-city areas of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane towards the Greens. He says that this announcement by Kevin Rudd gives Greens MP Adam Bandt his best chance of keeping his Melbourne seat.

Immigration Minister Tony Burke says that this is not a left vs. right political debate, but all about saving lives. There has been no comment from him or the Prime Minister about what effect the policy might have in voter land, although Speaker Anna Burke says that she will lose votes because of her party's stance.

But although it hasn't been mentioned, politics is of course central to the reason this drastic measure has been introduced. So before we start thinking that Labor's youth vote will creep elsewhere, let's have a think about where this policy is politically directed at.

According to the ANU's Andrew Hughes, it's primarily aimed at winning back voters in Western Sydney. Labor MPs from the region of two million people were facing an electoral oblivion before Kevin Rudd's return. The MP for Werriwa Laurie Ferguson* told the party that if it didn't get on the front on this issue, it would be electorally "dead".

And when you have a look at the demographics of Western Sydney, you find it is actually a very young area. More than 37 per cent of residents are aged 24 and under, compares to around 32 per cent nationally. It's an area where there is high youth unemployment and increasing pressure on roads, transport and health services.

Mr Hughes says the young people here are more likely to be concerned about job security than those living in inner-city areas. And that anxiety is heightened when there is a perception that porous borders might mean more people competing for your job.

So while Kevin Rudd says he wants the youth engagement, what is actually more important is that he gets younger voters in the seats that matter to shift their vote from the Coalition to Labor.

But the young people who welcome Labor's policy won't be marching in the street to voice their opinion, nor will they be burning party membership cards to make their point. Their approval, if given, will be marked on the ballot paper, not in protest slogans. Which means we will probably have to wait until election day to see if Kevin Rudd's hard line has sunk in to those who matter most to the Labor Party.

*Editor's note (July 26, 2013): An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated Laurie Ferguson was retiring at the 2013 election. The Drum regrets the error.

Julia Holman is triple j Hack's reporter based in Parliament House. She is on Twitter@JulesHolman. View her full profilehere.

kevin 457:

"have a perfectly manageable debt level which is very low by world standards" - pretty much exactly what the spanish, irish, greeks, italians et al were all saying 5 or 6 years ago DG.

you probably also think it will all be balanced out "across the economic cycle" like dear old wayne swan. yeah right. its looking like a pretty long cycle today!

dont worry - the conservatives will always be there to pick up the mess. its just that the longer you wait, the more that it is going to cost the "young voter". just ask the aforementioned spanish, where youth unemployment is 50%.

Mitor the Bold:

24 Jul 2013 11:08:23pm

"pretty much exactly what the spanish, irish, greeks, italians et al were all saying 5 or 6 years ago"

Their problem wasn't debt, it was exposure to bad loans made to people with no ability to repay them, secured against depreciating assets. This, in turn, was due to Reagan/Thatcher-era deregulation in favour of bankers and other industrialists.

I'll bet you don't have a nuclear bunker in your back garden because the threat of nuclear war has contracted. Similarly, when people like Greenspan and Gordon Brown declared the eras of boom and bust over - that we had tamed the volatility of the market - it was perfectly reasonable for countries to assume AAA-rated debt to give citizens what they demanded.

The LNP think we should all be building bunkers again - but I think their real objective is to shrink government and migrate power not into the hands of the average citizen but to their rich, industrialist, billionaire miner mates. Who has gained and lost in QLD since Newman took over? The evidence is right there for all to see - and we'll see it nationally if Abbott gets in in Canberra.

Whitey:

25 Jul 2013 9:53:57am

Mitor, I groan every time I hear someone bagging the neocons for all that went wrong in economics for the last thirty years. The reality is that deregulation and globalization, like the collapse of communism, is all about the megapolitical forces of IT, the availability of world travel, and the increasingly global world we live in. The communists learned that a fully controlled economy was never going to compete with a free western style economy, in spite of the problems we now face. If you want to learn why it all happened, I recommend you read the late nineties book, " The Soverign Individual". You will find most of what has happened is forecast in that book or the precursor, "The Great Reckoning", which pretty much predicted the GFC, twenty years before it happened, just as the authors predicted the fall of communism about ten years before it happened. Not all of their predictions have actually happened, but enough to know that their understanding of economics can tell us a fair bit about the future world.

Lukemac:

25 Jul 2013 11:01:08am

Oh Mintor Really?The issues in Europe are to do with Government debt and nothing to do with personal debt at all.Successive European Governments have borrowed money to fund social programs etc using the exact same logic the Rudd is using now.It not too much debt, we can pay it back, all the while they borrowed more and more and more to the point that sereval European countries are now on the verge of being failed states.It was Clinton who made the banking changes in the USA that lead to the subprime Crisis.The QLD ALP grew the public service from 80,000 to 120,000 people, the LNP has trimmed it back by 4000 or only 10% of what Labor grew the public service by in an attempt to rein in the budget and balance the books.God forbid governmnets should live within their means and not sell our childrens futures down the river for a few minutes of popularity and a hand full of votes.

KevinS:

25 Jul 2013 12:12:42pm

Lukemac

The issues in Europe have to do with the sovereign debt created by billions of Euros directed to bailing out the banking and financial sector in 2008-10 and then more debt created by bailing out EU members from 2010 on who had bailed failed private enterprise banking and financial services corporations. The GFC for short.

A closed protected market and corporate system, combined with overgenerous social and welfare spending created a structural inability of these EU members to service the transfer of corporate debt to the public finances.

Do not rewrite history. Private enterprise greed, recklessness and undue interfere of the big corporates into sound financial regulatory frameworks in Europe and, particularly the US, was to blame. And this has not been suitably redressed.

The corporate world actually remains awash with money. But the tax receipts of all major economies, including Australia is down as corporates, business and very wealthy individuals use tax havens and clever accounting to shift money out of the jurisdictions of nations.

You cannot judge the Australian national debt by looking at a national debt figure in isolation. The Howard surplus was no different to an individual having $100,000 but it all actually needing to spends many thousands more than that to repair the roof over their head. The structural deficit created by the Howard team over 11 years by allowing Australia's existing infrastructure to decline and deteriorate with too few new works to meet ongoing demands of the growing economy actually swallowed the so called Howard/Costello surplus by 152%.But do not let fact get in the way of a colourful story and biased political view.

Lee of Brisbane:

25 Jul 2013 12:35:51am

Kevi 457: You do realise that our spending on "Defence" is $113 billion. You do realise your worrisome debt can be managed by reduced Defence spending. Or maybe we can reduce Health Spending, or maybe Education. The Budget is a balance of needs and wants. A manageable debt to achieve our wants is very acceptable to me is we are to be a compassionate and successful society.

Just what cuts would you make.

It may interest you that Abbott and his cohorts reckon its okay for some to rort the tax provisions on salary sacrifice cars to the tune of $1.8 billion. Where's the consistency.

ardy:

25 Jul 2013 8:21:09am

L.O.B. it over the fence: So its a rort to have a company car which you pay for, as companies have stopped buying cars for sales people etc who are on the road a lot.

Maybe you should stop looking for 'rorts' in the legitimate and legal work force and start looking for hundreds of millions of dollars that the Labor parties corruption has endorsed and pocketed mostly from their construction mates for years...

Peter:

25 Jul 2013 12:26:11pm

There is probably no point in asking you to substantiate your corruption claims, but go ahead- knock yourself out. (Hint: rumour, statements by construction companies and references to Craig Thompson or Peter Slipper don't count as substantiation.)The fact that an unspecified % of people with salary-sacrificed cars comply with the ATO's requirements does not mean that all do - and those that don't should be required to pay what they owe. Do tell us if you disagree and if so why.

luke warm:

The rort is to get a tax benefit for the car when it's being used privately and not for company business. If the actual private use is 20%, then it will make no difference to the taxpayer.

The fact that the government expects to claw back money from this (and the screams from those claiming to be affected) strongly suggests that in most cases the actual private use is more than 20%. Which means that taxpayers who cannot take advantage of this benefit are subsidising the private car use of those who can. In other words, get your hand out of my pocket.

John:

25 Jul 2013 9:44:05am

Why don't we start by sending all the illegal entrants back to their birth countries?

That way we would save the $60 million needed to rebuild the Nauru facilities recently destroyed in a riot. We wouldn't need to spend millions on building facilities on Manus Island, or the costs to staff it and run it.

Then we would save the $2 billion (approx) that it costs us each year to maintain Christmas Island and all the associated services that go with it, such as medical care, security checks and staff, plus all the on-shore detention and supervisory facilities.

There you are. There is about $3 billion in savings. A year. Every year.

What would that do to the problems we see in health, education, roads and other infrastructure? And how much help could we then give to places like PNG or The Solomons in our own part of the world, let alone the support that could be made available to the UNHCR camps around the world.

Daisy May:

traveller:

25 Jul 2013 10:48:43am

Lee, what rorts, what people are doing is perfectly legal and therefore can't be a rort. A rort is when one group, say union officials, gets an unfair advantage when it comes to electoral preselection or when someone who for instance is a minor olympic competitor with no political experience who is selected for senate nomination in an attempt to capitalise on her perceived popularity.

Albo:

25 Jul 2013 2:51:27pm

Or the myriad of ALP politicians and Union officials in front of ICAC enquiries HSU Court cases .......now that is all about rorts !What is not a rort is the following of legislated FBT rules that were laid down deliberately to avoid bureaucratic inefficiencies / costs whilst supporting the motor industry and associated industries employment numbers. All of which is now under threat via the ALP's usual desperate lurch for a political fix !

Esteban:

24 Jul 2013 6:39:50pm

Of course a lot depends on how we define "perfectly manageable" I don't for instance think borrowing more money to meet your interest bill and recurrent expenditure managing your debt very well. Many on the left would disagree.

However in terms of rapaying the debt I agree with what Kevin457 has posted above.

Don't forget that your Mr Swann has forecast two more deficits before a breakeven budget in 3 years.

That means that it will be at least 4 years before we record a surplus and begin the long path of chipping away at the debt. Of course that assumes that the treasury forecasts will be correct which for some strange reason always were wrong under Mr Swann. Wrong by overstaing revenue and understating the size of the budget deficit.

I reckon the tax of young voters will be used for a good half of their working lives to repay the debt created by the ALP.

If we are very lucky a coalition might be able to pay it back before the end of the economic cycle when deficits will reappear.

Otherwise we will take residual debt from this cycle into the next. That would be a slippery slope that if Euro countries could have their time again they would avoid.

dwk:

24 Jul 2013 8:04:29pm

You need to understand the difference between net debt and gross debt before making ridiculous comparisons with Portugal and Ireland. Our debt repayments and borrowings are actually less than When John Howard was in power. We have a tiny, tiny debt compared to these countries. The Abbot is spouting nonsense, not facts about our economic situation.

kevin 457:

24 Jul 2013 8:54:10pm

total bollocks dwk. have a look at the ABS, budget office or any of a number of easily found sources. australian government net debt 1996 (when howard took over) $96bn. when he left in 2007 - minus$45bn (ie in the black), 2013 (from mid year econ forecast) $144bn.

pretty clear history there. and before you bother saying "what about as a proportion of GDP etc?" you are wasting your breath. the plain facts speak for themselves and when the economy turns bad or interest rates rise, we WILL find ourselves in the same position as Portugal or Ireland. they were exactly as complacent as you before the GFC.

thats why public debt like ours is stupid. thanks Kevin, Julia and Wayne.

Peter:

25 Jul 2013 12:30:40pm

Kevin 457Bollocks yourself. You say interest rate rises will be bad. Joe Hockey has just said that an interest rate cut will be bad. Which is it? Do you realise that this morning we got sunrise later than tiny countries in the South Pacific? Rudd's fault!

Dugong:

24 Jul 2013 10:16:04pm

Swan needs to understand the difference between "we have delivered a surplus on time" and "this document is a mere pretence of a promise of a surplus in 12 months time".

Funny you should lecture us, the mere voters, when our esteemed Treasurer doesn't know (or doesn't understand) the difference between a budget surplus and a budget forecasting (erroneously, as it turned out) a surplus.

ferryman:

juliet jones:

24 Jul 2013 7:24:24pm

No it's not misleading. And if you think so, why? And why should we have no debt? Most countries run in the red. You are like most other right-wingers on here. You are all parochial to a man...and woman.

llanfair:

24 Jul 2013 9:25:23pm

I do not think that debt is bad, but if you have bought a Mc Mansion, because your children (or grandchildren) will pay off your debt, I find it rather offensive. This is what the current Government has done.

The issue that I find abhorrent about Socialists is that their goal in life is to spend everyone else's money on do-good causes that they think will excuse them from never contributing to the common wealth.

We have an economy full of Public Servants who earn more than the people they serve, and Social Workers, who thrive on never fixing social problems; and grow by inventing new ones.

If you do not understand the concerns of those who hate a country continually being in the RED, I suggest that it is because you will not be one of the few who will need to pay the debt off.

Stuffed Olive:

25 Jul 2013 10:46:09am

Apart from the fact that we do not have a Socialist government and that there are few socialists in the country, your beliefs are a myth from your Liberal manual of mantras and lies. Spending money on programs which benefit all Australians is the aim of Labor as opposed to the truly selective spending of Lib/Nats. It is Labor which always contributes most to the common wealth as you put it - it is called building infrastucture - always low on the Lib's list whose top priority is tax cuts or more perks for the relatively wealthy, not the many.

Billy Bob Hall:

25 Jul 2013 11:40:57am

What do you mean ? We recently had a Prime Minister who was a paid up member of the Socialist Forum.Even Bill Hayden back in the day called himself a 'Democratic Socialist', which is a contradiction of terms actually - he was socialist all the same.

Dr Dig:

25 Jul 2013 4:07:40pm

SO, there may be few socialists in this country. However I find it interesting that every Labor PM this country has ever had (prior to KR, not sure about him) is/was a member of the Socialist group known as the Fabian Society. The number one purpose for being fo this 'Society', as stated in its constitution, is the abolition of individual wealth and individual property rights.

Joseph B:

25 Jul 2013 12:00:49pm

I thank all you young people who will work so hard to pay for my retirement and for your willingness to pay the debt our generation left you.

Australia sailed through the GFC because of the mining boom, not because labor wasted money on Pink Batts and school halls. Labor took a net debt surplus of about $45b and increased debt by $200B in 4 short years. The interest on the debt is enough to pay for Gonski or the NDIS and it will be young people who will pay for this, not aging retirees.

Sound economics suggest you save when times are good, something labor failed to do. Government revenue will decline dramatically as the mining boom is over at a time when they are introducing big unfunded programs, the NDIS, Gonski, NBN, etc.I thank all you young people who will work so hard to pay for my retirement and for your willingness to pay the debt our generation left you.

chipinga:

25 Jul 2013 9:12:56am

We came through because of 300 billion we borrowed under Rudd et al..

..problem is we need to pay it back at a time when the economy is now faltering, unemployment is rising, mining boom declining and China's economy is slowing..tough times are about to hit us...especially if KRudd gets across the line and continues to borrow like there is no tomorrow.

burke:

25 Jul 2013 1:03:51pm

Evidence is now coming in that the government's stimulus programme was not a factor in getting us through the gfc. Most of the credit should go to the mining industry. So the plunge in to debt was not productive and is now a drag on the economy. It was poor governance.

2 Mins Silence For Tony:

24 Jul 2013 5:50:20pm

Why would you vote for the LNP when their solution always involves selling off every public asset we have? Our debt is next to nothing compared to pretty much every other country in the world, but let's all lose our minds over the fact that we haven't bounced back in three years from the worst global economic crisis in nearly a century...

What is wrong with manageable debt? Do we not ALL take out mortgages to afford a house? Do you withhold medical care and education from your children to pay off your house? Of course not - that would be heartless and stupid. Why is the country any different? The ALP managed Australia through the GFC brilliantly, and all the current LNP fanboys can scream is "The debt! The debt!" Our economy is in great shape - even John Howard says so.

If your children are going to be multimillionaire miners and property developers, then by all means, vote LNP - that's who they take care of. If not, then why in the hell would anyone vote for a party whose track record shows nothing but taking from the poor to support the rich? Show me one time when the LNP didn't fix the economy by clawing back from those with the very least! I'm not saying vote ALP (I certainly won't be) or the Watermelon party (Green on the outside, red on the inside), but don't just jump to the LNP's dung pile because you don't like the dung pile the ALP have on offer...

RayS:

24 Jul 2013 8:49:04pm

Exactly so. We can easily pay off the interest of around $10 billion a year even if we don't repay the debt, based on a national GDP which is 250 times greater than the interest and 9 times greater than the debt.

With that debt we have secured hard assets in our time and stopped our economy from shrinking, laying the foundations for our economy to diversify, as well as maintaining social equity.

Besides that, despite the flagrant lie by the conservatives that Costello had paid out all the national debt, they never got below $50 billion and were back up to $58 billion by the time of the 2007 election at which they were routed. They spent a higher proportion of GDP and ran an overall weaker economy and that was in easy times. If they get back with rabid support from the drooling media channeling their billionaire owners interests and keeping Abbott out of the limelight as much as possible, we will all be going to hell in a hand basket.

harry:

25 Jul 2013 11:51:34am

"Besides that, despite the flagrant lie by the conservatives that Costello had paid out all the national debt, they never got below $50 billion and were back up to $58 billion by the time of the 2007 election.

Totally false. Australia had net savings by the election of $40B, plus $70B in the future fund.It still had a gross debt because it wanted to maintain the bond market but those debts were more than offset by the assets they held.You are either being deliberately misleading or are hopelessly confused.

burke:

Albo:

25 Jul 2013 3:02:31pm

"What is wrong with manageable debt? "

Nothing at all !Problem for Australia is that it hasn't been managed for the past 6 years ! And is now totally out of control and increasing faster than that of any other OECD nation !Comparing the debt to GDP ratio with other countries is simply a fraudulent method to mislead the public that we shouldn't worry about the massive debt and deficits generated over each of the past 6 years !

Hodor:

25 Jul 2013 3:04:29pm

If your children are going to be multimillionaires and property developers? Haha, more like if your children are smart enough and hardworking enough to earn over 100k. Labour takes from the hardworking middle class and gives to the poor, don't exaggerate.

Leon:

24 Jul 2013 5:52:29pm

So on behalf of the LNP you are appealing to these young voters by labelling them "bogans" upfront...good luck.People capable of more rational thought than you, and most young voters are, will still see ALP policies as being more humane than those of the LNP across the whole range of issues facing this election.

Denny:

25 Jul 2013 1:24:07pm

Leon, labelling people as bogans is wrong. I think a more appropriate word after reading your post is illinformed.

If you think that having all detention centres full to overflowing and the 1200 deaths is more humaine than Howard policy that had only a handfull of people in detention then illinformed is too generous. Maybe unintellegent is more appropriate.

juliet jones:

24 Jul 2013 7:29:19pm

Kevin Rudd and Labor will win this election and it's just killing you isn't it? But their policies are better than those of the LNP (well, Labor actually have policies) and there is a smarter front bench than the likes of Sophie Mirabella, Julie Bishop, Barnaby Joyce and George Brandis. Howard's B team at best. Reading from the same old hymn book and nothing new in their heads at all. At least Labor will implement something new-and necessary in the case of Gonski and the NDIS. And yes, we can pay for it. As Barack Obama said-not all debt is bad; it depends what it is spent on. I'd rather look after disabled people than pay rich women to have private school babies myself.

juliet jones:

Joy:

24 Jul 2013 9:17:39pm

Yes rich women should pay for their own babies. A little bit of triple a debt is a great idea. Kevin will always ensure that debt is never a problem and that rich women stand on their own two feet during birth. Right wingers begone, Kevin is back and has opened holiday camps in PNG.

big joe:

25 Jul 2013 1:20:14pm

Actually Dazza Abbott has said no such thing, what he has said is that he would not go through with Rudds plan if he is elected. Please, if you insist on posting please try and be just a little bit factual.

burke:

reaver:

25 Jul 2013 10:47:53am

I wouldn't count my chicken yet if I were you, juliet, given that the polls are stabilising with Labor on a 37% primary vote and the coalition at 45%. Labor's vote in 2010 was 38% and the coalition's was 43%.

big joe:

25 Jul 2013 1:25:40pm

Actually Reaver Juliet is a great little chicken counter, she hated Rudd before he deposed Julia (or so she has said on many occasions) but now embraces him as the second coming. She openly slammed Abbotts stop the boats but has embraced Rudds far more draconian proposition. She has yet to tell us where she lives as her place of residence seems to vary depending on the topic being discussed, so yeah, it's fair to say she's a great little chicken counter.

burke:

Dr Dig:

25 Jul 2013 4:14:54pm

Have you put your hard earned money on that outcome seeing you are so certain the bookies have the outcome so very wrong. Even if you think Labor will become a 'genuine' contender, you can take the price now and when everyone else realises what you already know you can lay them back for win either way.

I posted on here some time ago that it is obvious that the LNP are allowing Rudd enough rope to hang himself. The noose has tightened in the past few days to a week and it won't be long before the he stumbles of the soap box completely.

Joy:

24 Jul 2013 9:20:27pm

We need to believe in Kevin and trust the rating agencies, they have never lied. They got the GFC ratings exactly right and made billions. They will triple a us until Kevin borrows a couple of trillion. In Kev we trust.

jusme:

it's the young people and future gens that will be reaping the most benefit from the NBN, gonski, school halls etc. why shouldn't they pay taxes like we do, some of which will repay any debt.

i'm sure treating asylum seekers harshly is the wrong thing, but i'm also concerned about the welfare of this country. if this move keeps abbott and the coalition away from power then mission 2 is accomplished. under labor at least they're already looking at raising the humanitarian intake to 27k, while abbott has already reneged on his one time promise to raise it to 20k.

i'll still vote green, knowing full well they'll fight the good fight and back the least worst major party because the system means there's no other choice.

kevin 457:

24 Jul 2013 7:49:38pm

good to see you are still going to support the greens Jusme. their support for the ALP has proven to be marvellous judgement. well, that is, unless you want to do something about carbon pollution and have a humane asylum seeker policy. do you think they will be giving their preferences to the ALP again?

Alpo:

25 Jul 2013 8:32:16am

"do you think they will be giving their preferences to the ALP again?"... Of course they will, because the Greens will be "always unhappier under a Government the Coalition leads".... Pretty simple, really.Some components of the ALP may be in competition with the Greens for the hearts and minds of People in the left, but the Liberal Party want to see the Greens destroyed, pulverised, annihilated.... Have you got the idea kev?

Alpo:

24 Jul 2013 8:54:21pm

" in pursuit of a few bogan votes."... They were known as "Howard's Battlers" and it is exactly their vote that Abbott so desperately wants. In fact, their vote is the only reason why the hopeless populist Abbott has not been booted out of the Leadership by his own Party.

Albo:

25 Jul 2013 3:42:10pm

Howard's battlers represent middle Australia. They are a large cross section of working and middle class voters with aspirations to keep or to improve their job lots, manage their suburban mortgage and escalating costs of living, and to bring up their families with better opportunities than they had.These are priorities for this group of people. Issues like gay marriage, saving the whales, gender issues, cross media laws, and ABC integrity are but minor issues in these folks world.Howard understood that ! Abbott understands that ! Gillard never realised it and its why she has been booted out by her own Party ! Now we have the recycled fraudster trying to pretend he understands these folk, but the" battlers" are wise to him now, and come election day, it will dawn on him big time that the con job is now up !

Bludgerette:

24 Jul 2013 9:08:22pm

Exactly, Kevin wants voters who have no thought for the future as he says we have the lowest debt in the world and he wants to change that to the highest debt in the world because he can.Why would a thinking, intelligent young person vote for that, not even the Greens are that stupid.

Esteban:

OntheRun:

True. Thoes living in the city are more likely to be employed in an office, less likely to have a refugee as a neighbour and less likely to be impacted by the current/previous asylum policy.

Its so nice when people who do not need to be near the percentage of asylum seekers that riot, rape (see recent immigration official), can not be trusted with the opposite gender in the processing facilities, lack proper identification, make social services harder to access by increasing the demand or are difficult to communicate with due to lacking abilities to speak English are not around them.

That Guy:

25 Jul 2013 1:46:58am

Indian students on forged papers? Really? Wow... Pray tell how many Indian students on forged papers vote do you think? Given that by running their forged identities past the governments nose an unnecessary time would surely be fairly dim and anyway, would Indians on student visas be eligible to vote in an Australian election anyway? Given I can't imagine foreign students can vote in our elections anyway what on earth makes you think they are going to get around to voting twice.

As for your assertion about 457 visas doing a runner also voting twice I'll let that one go through to the keeper...

You may however be correct about voting patterns for refugees. They may well vote ALP. At least in their earlier years of living here. That would be an interesting area of study.

burke:

tsj:

24 Jul 2013 5:01:10pm

It is not only younger voters who are being alienated and politically confused by this policy shift.

I am a generation X-er who has been morally disturbed by this recent development. It is a difficult decision to have made, and no doubt there will be many more twists and turns in the process of getting the balance right.

With regard to the youth vote. Many of the protestors are doing so on purely moral grounds without any real thought to what the opposing stance means for our country and its people and the economy.

The right wing appeal of the revamped asylum seeker policy is enough in itself to rile the left wing student ranks. I think in the 1960's they incorrectly labelled such actions as Fascism. Youth will always rebel and protest.

Providing this is not a permanent manifesto of the newly installed Rudd government, and does serve to deter or actually halt the unscrupulous people smuggling trade, it will all be OK.

Nell:

24 Jul 2013 5:49:38pm

"Many of the protestors are doing so on purely moral grounds...". That is right tsj because in a developmental sense the ages 18-25 are said to be the most idealistic age. Our values are formed and articulated clearly and without complication about what we think makes for 'the good society' and yes, this makes young people difficult for open, democratic governments to deal with.

My generation marched and protested against war and authoritarianism in church and state and I'm sure for many that did that due to economic factors over the last two decades this group has now become the landlord class. Houda imagined it! Not back then.

Your generation have been the ones who suffered most in terms of social and economic exclusion - the youth unemployment in your early days was extreme and Conservatives engaged in a great deal of blaming and shaming the victims of the economic revolution THEY KNEW WAS NOT YOUR FAULT! The subsequent 'insecure' employment and extreme housing market and the great credit seduction have presented enormous difficulties for all of you as you began your families.

Angry and disengaged - well not you apparently but many are and who can blame them.

burke:

Jimmy Necktie:

25 Jul 2013 7:52:35am

Funny thing about morals, for those what have them, you can't water them down. You must stand steadfastly by them or abandon them, but you can't say "it's only a little bit wrong" or "it's wrong, but it does something good".

Denny:

Why not jimmy? Labor have abandoning its principles since getting rid of Gillard. They have sold their souls to the devil and yet the supporters are falling overthemselves to forgive.

It really is an amazing spectacle to watch. What do labor and its supporters stand for? The ONLY thing that I see is that they want Power. They think that they are born to rule and that we should all get doen on our hands and knees to thank them.

Labor and its supporters at the ABC will always find a way to justify turning their backs on their principles. Morals and ethics do not matter, the end always justifies the means and the only end is Power. Australia should be ashamed.

Bob G:

24 Jul 2013 5:06:19pm

Regardless of public opinion Kevin Rudd will cling to the Prime Ministership by fair or foul means.He has and will use any avenue right and wrong to ensure his ego is well fed.If it requires the younger set to achieve his goal he will pursue them with vigour and promises that he does not intend to keep.There is nothing NEW with Kevin Rudd just the same old same old.

llanfair:

24 Jul 2013 6:12:19pm

I think you will find that once the election starts in earnest, Kevin will get his own and be undermined by a Party who does not want him.

My guess is that they will endure him for a couple of months to stem the previously expected massive lots of seats, but all they really want is for the LNP to be limited to a manageable majority that gives them a chance in 2016. They will be happy to lose a few seats (and Government) and then they at next year's Labour Conference they will vote against KR's reforms; dump him; let the Coalition take the popularity hit on the massive cuts that will be required to rebalance the books (while delivering on Gonski and NDIS); and hope to win back government on the drop in support this entails.

As for the youth vote, going on the feeling of my own children, the cut in Uni spending is a bigger deal that the Asylum debate. They will probably vote for the Sex Party!

Albo:

25 Jul 2013 4:07:24pm

I think you are spot on there Ilanfair !It's just a giant con job being played by the ALP !They will be very distraught if they actually win the election and have to bul#?hit their way through another disastrous 3 years of escalating debt and incompetence with Rudd in tow!They know very well they just want a respectable loss, so they can get rid of Rudd once and for all, and have the Coalition set up with the mess to clean up whilst the ALP take 3 years of pot shots at them in preparation for 2016 !

Give us a break:

Malcolm:

24 Jul 2013 5:13:49pm

So these young idealists will instead vote for Greens and the preferences will flow where? To Tony Abbott's side, I doubt it. Please let us not lose sight of reality and go down the primrose path of idealism for down there lies nothing but failure.

Mycal:

24 Jul 2013 5:57:44pm

Malcolm I do feel for you, how can you possibly be so cynical? Politics is not about the hip pocket but it is about morality. Sometimes I think we confuse the two but ask yourself, would rather live in a country that was rich and immoral or poor but moral? (not advocating that as choice, I'd personally prefer rich and moral).

Without ideals it is impossible to fail because you have nothing to aim for. It is also not true to suggest that idealism always fails, in no particular order:a) it put a man on the moon,b) stopped a war in Vietnamc) changed the status of western women (suffragettes to womens lib)d) build the Snowy Mountain Scheme and the bread basket of Australiae) rescued millions from Nazi tyrranyf) saved millions from blindness (Fed Hollows)g) funds a womens hospital in Ethiopa that is dedicated to fixing fistula'sh) eradicated small pox

You get the idea, so vote your conscience and at least you will have the knowledge that you have done the right thing even if you do fail.

burke:

antipostmodernism:

24 Jul 2013 6:12:57pm

The leftist idealism of the young can be excused as a lack of experience and boneheaded carefree rebellion, and worship of shiny things like Rudd and international false idols. For most it will pass. However I can't fathom or tolerate those who refuse to ever grow up and accept the world as it is and attempt to distort reality and bully sensible people and drag them into their dreamworld. The Greens are simply dangerous and deranged.

Mycal:

24 Jul 2013 6:48:52pm

antipostmodernism I could take personal exception to your post, suggesting that idealism is only for the young and that "For most it will pass ..." implies that I am a severe case of arrested development!

I have been arrested and it was an unfortunate development associated with the expression of ideals, but having ideals helps get me out of bed on the morning, what motivates you?

Anyone, of any age, that "accept the world as it is" does not contribute, creates nothing and leaves no legacy. You do not live in the best of all possible worlds, I recommend that you read some Voltaire (Candide comes to mind). Have the wisdom to accept the things you cannot change and the courage to change what you can. Wanting and working to change the world for the better does not distort reality, it creates it.

antipostmodernism:

24 Jul 2013 8:11:19pm

I wish the Greens would focus on Australia rather than world follies. For example, we should not be not responsible for emnities in countries with wildly different cultures and religions. Its about keeping it real and protecting ourselves.

Lee of Brisbane:

25 Jul 2013 12:17:42am

antipostmodernism, Just what do you think you have to protect yourself against. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting a better world. First we need to understand that fear is our enemy. Fear of others and their idea's.

burke:

Gone to the races:

24 Jul 2013 9:45:08pm

@antipostmodern I rarely agree with your politics but I think I can help a fellow poster to the ABC. I can help you with getting the SMH back on line. They have installed tracker cookies on your computer (not nice who likes being tracked?) that count the number of articles you read. Only 10 per month. It will block you reading anymore. If you right click on your search arrow pointing left you will see "show full history" click on this and then click on "clear browsing data" from the "beginning of time". This will clear any organisation trying to track you. It will allow you access again. Just repeat the process every 10 articles you read. I'm sure more savvy tech heads have a shorter method but trust me it works. Good luck.

luke warm:

25 Jul 2013 1:56:24pm

?The leftist idealism of the young can be excused as a lack of experience and boneheaded carefree rebellion.?

So what?s the excuse of the rabid right for their adoration of the dishonest, thuggish, vain, Abbott and his incoherent ?policies?? Must be lack of learning from experience and boneheaded conservatism.

Alpo:

24 Jul 2013 5:14:07pm

Those who disapprove of the hardening of the Labor policies on asylum seekers are most welcome to give their first preference to Greens or an Independent. But they must also consider ALL the other policies across the many areas of importance for this Nation. After they have done that, I am more than confident that their second preference will be for Labor and they will put the Liberal Party last. Keeping Labor in is a choice, keeping the current incarnation of the Coalition out is a duty!

juliet jones:

24 Jul 2013 7:34:33pm

You can end up with Labor or you can end up with the Liberal Party. Those are your stark choices. We can all vote independent, but we will still have one of the two major parties running the show. Better anyone than Tony Abbott. It is he who has politicised everything in his quest to be PM. He ought to be drummed out of politics. He got the irks when he didn't get in the last time and has spent the years since having a giant dummy spit. Well, he better get used to it, since he has clearly lost this election as well.

burke:

whogoesthere:

24 Jul 2013 5:15:05pm

The young ones who don't like Rudd or Abbott's policy can vote Green. But I expect most young people don't care. For all the hoo-ha, this policy won't hurt Rudd at the ballot box. He might still lose, but that won't be because of his 'lurch to the right' on boat people. Only the most hopelessly idealistic could believe that.

Granada:

24 Jul 2013 5:21:40pm

Yes Julia "Setting something alight is one of the strongest signals you can send" Burning down a 60 million dollar taxpayer funded facility sends a message. The message is why are we being so reasonable with these people?

ClareBear:

24 Jul 2013 5:25:59pm

As a young (ish) voter, the race to the bottom that Rudd is participating is making me furious. Over the past two terms of government I have become progressively more and more disenfranchised with political process, turning off the news.

But now? I feel I have a moral obligation to get involved. I have applied for membership to the Greens and will be doing everything I can to bring this country back to the land of the fair go.

David Latimer:

25 Jul 2013 3:17:52am

Unfortunately, the race to the bottom also includes the Greens.

The Green refused to support carbon pricing in 2009. They repeatedly voted against bi-partisan action on climate change. Australia could have had the ETS four years earlier and built-up confidence in a carbon pricing system.

The Greens refused to acknowledge the horrible reality of men, women and children drowning. Instead, they called for an increase to Australia's refugee intake to 25,000 per year, plus faster processing. This would accelerate the pull factors, put more people on boats, and leave more dead children in the ocean.

To solve that, they wanted to review "Australia's universal visa requirements [to] assist people to seek protection in Australia by the safer means of air travel." They believed, under such a policy, Australia would continue to receive just 1.3% of the UN's 876,100 yearly applications for asylum. (See page 7 of http://expertpanelonasylumseekers.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/public-submissions/AustralianGreens.pdf).

I hope the Greens will care more about refugees, children and the environment in the future.

David Hamilton:

25 Jul 2013 9:08:05am

David, the Greens voted against the Kevin07/Malcolm Turnbull ETS in 2009 because it locked in failure - it enshrined hopelessly inadequate and unambitious emissions reductions targets in the legislation. At the time I thought their decision to vote against the legislation was courageous; in hindsight they were correct. The legislation developed during the current parliament allows for much greater reduction levels to be adopted following a review by an independent body, the Climate Change Authority (which Tony Abbott has promised to abolish).

Read the Climate Commission's report available at http://climatecommission.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/The-Critical-Decade-2013_Website.pdf and decide for yourself which political party's policies come closest to what the scientists tell us we need to do.

burke:

Desdes:

24 Jul 2013 5:28:45pm

The answer to these sincere young people is to put labor LAST at the election.....the only way to stop them lurching to the right is,in the short term,to defeat them....three years of rebuilding and an Abbott government come back to labor after it has returned to be a party of principal rather than the pragmatic opportunists who will change leaders and policies,betraying principals to hold their seats

Mycal:

24 Jul 2013 6:05:18pm

Desdes it's called "creative destruction", the death that makes way for rebirth.

I love the concept but I'm not sure about the politics, Labor has never struck me as a phoenix and bad as Abbott may be it will not be as terrible as his critics imagine. If they win the Liberals could be there for several electoral cycles

I do agree however that we should not be voting for the unprincipled and opportunist but that kinda rules them all out and besides, there's no guarentee that the next generation of politicians won't be as venal, opportunistic and amoral as the current bunch

Alpo:

24 Jul 2013 7:35:59pm

"and an Abbott government"... Nothing, I repeat Nothing that the Rudd Government, and previously the Gillard Government, are doing and have done will ever justify the act of political suicide that this Nation would commit by electing a disaster such as Abbott and his gang as the Government of Australia. This would seal the appalling tactics of the Coalition and their mates/masters in the Media as the new rule of politics. The Coalition need to lose and be reborn from their ashes: a more democratic, constructive, intelligent, science-based, truly Liberal rather than Neoliberal or Populist side of politics. Truly honest Liberals would do well to repel Abbott and vote for this one time for Labor or Greens, that's the only way that their true leader, Malcolm Turnbull, can really take over.

MrMFA:

24 Jul 2013 5:39:31pm

If Rudds policy actually disuades people from boarding boats for a life threatening journey then it will save lives. This does not mean Australia should not take refugees, there is no doubt we should. But the lives lost in the last few years demonstrate this is extremely risky way to get way to get here.

Give us a break:

burke:

25 Jul 2013 3:50:30pm

I disagree. The smugglers make a good living from persuading people to get on boats. They will tell every lie they want to, to achieve this. Many refugees will be deceived. The boats will continue. There will then be a disaster on PNG.

AUS is our Union:

24 Jul 2013 5:42:42pm

Not sure if the small protest by "youth" outside Balmain Town Hall using loudhailers badged "Socialist Alliance" qualifies as a popular youth uprising.

If no-one comes by boat then no-one goes to PNG.If no-one comes by boat then more people waiting in the UN Camps will get a Visa and come to Australia orderly.If no-one comes by boat no-one risks drowning.

These might be better megaphone chants. Though too many words for the right, and not utopian enough for the left.

OntheRun:

24 Jul 2013 5:48:50pm

I saw the protest outside the ALP meeting. It was two or three people thick at most. It was a weak number.

The people who where there never would have voted Liberal. The greens vote is currently at 9%. People have gone to the Liberal party for a reason. This is because they believe we will be getting a better quality refugee from the Liberal party and less will be dying at sea.

As a young person (younger than the 30 year old mentioned), I as sickened by every death at sea. I am sickened by abusive actions to Immigration staffBy damage to Australian property during riots

And to our current sexist and elitist policy that favours males with $10,000+ to spend on corruption in Indonesia to get here.

AND most of all to the actions of refugees when for safety reasons males, females and children can not be in the same community. In Australia, we all live together but in refugee camps there are threats by detainees leading to protests and even rape (see ABC news report).

We are actively hurting our neighbours and every person who had no option but to flee to a refugee camp with every boat arrival we take. This should be stopped and the current Labour policy is a small step in the right direction.

Granada:

24 Jul 2013 7:23:46pm

OTR how will towing the boats back "be getting a better quality refugee from the Liberal party" how will it stop the deaths at sea how will it do anything other than what it has already done, really piss off the Indonesians.

harry:

25 Jul 2013 12:02:29pm

Yeah, instead he should have just done what Rudd did, offer to allow one of the most corrupt governments in the world who already steal 50% of aid monies to have $500M of Australian aid without any direction on how it will be spent. Genius. Personally I think the PNG PM would have said that for a lot less, but Mr Rudd has always liked splashing tax payer money around.

OntheRun:

24 Jul 2013 11:38:07pm

Granada, its quite straight forward. We will be getting less selfish queue jumpers that have proven their connections with foreign criminal if we take people randomly from refugee camps let alone if we select refugees than the other way around.

The lack of incentive to push the way into Australia by boat will stop as many taking the journey, thus less chances of death thus less deaths.

And yes, I know turning boats back will piss of Indonesians. With about 20,000 arrivals this year with the average arrival paying $10,000 for the boat alone you are looking at a $200,000,000 industry. I am sure this lack of money will annoy many Indonesians from the bribe taking police to the boat organisers.

But what about the reverse? Do you not care if Australia is pissed off by Indonesia's lack of willingness to export accused people smugglers or the lack of ability to stop these criminal activities?

Australia does not need to accept anyone at our border wether the border is in an airport or on the international and Australian water border line. It is an Indonesian boat with an Indonesian captain and Australia should respect Indonesia's sovereignty. Unless Indonesia is willing to accept all on board back in Indonesia, Australia should not launch any rescue effort in International waters over an Indonesian issue.

Granada:

25 Jul 2013 11:14:29am

The matter is one of diplomacy and you like Abbott don't seem to understand how that works in Asian countries. Being a bully boy might work for Abbott in Australia when he is trampling over a woman but try doing that to the Indonesian leaders and you will soon see that Indonesia is not to be trifled with and you can puff out your chest as much as you like that wont change.

Glenn:

24 Jul 2013 6:39:52pm

Where do people get this idea that voters angry with Rudd's policy are going to vote for Abbott? Those of use who are disgusted, rightly, with this racist, dog-whistling policy, for the same reasons are disgusted with Abbott's alternatives. It is only Greens, independents and minor parties who will pick up first preferences coming from Labor. No one in their right mind can oppose the PNG solution, and then endorse the Liberal party's turn back the boats and off-shoring, without being a hypocrite. And it's not the hypocrites who've stood by their convictions and still reject off shoring.

OntheRun:

24 Jul 2013 7:06:48pm

Again the left plays negative politics. This is not about race. It is about death at sea, corruption in Indonesia (and rest of the world) and behaviour of people that want to become Australian citizens.

juliet jones:

Youngish voter:

24 Jul 2013 6:06:27pm

I'm coming around to the view that a progressive society and democracy can only work 'without' parties, we need a shift to a politics where there are NO marginal seats, because everyone elected is an independent.

Does party politics equal representation for the 'few' marginals or the country as a whole?

As much as I'm not a fan of libertarian analysis on the Drum I would like to here what Chris Berg thinks here regarding a correlation between big parties equalling big government?

OntheRun:

24 Jul 2013 6:29:57pm

Youngish voter, it seems you are suggesting that the swing of a seat (its margin) is the sole determining factor of wether the representative is in a party or not.

If Australia does not want parties, it should vote against them. But this election like all others, I suspect to hear someone say "I am voting for Abbott/Rudd" when neither candidate, let along both, is in their electorate.

Parties thrive due to voter ignorance. Very few people could name their local representative and because of that it is near impossible for the representative to be held to account.

It is possible that the person was an excellent minister in a horrible party and deserves re-election. Unfortunately, people will just see the horrible party.

OntheRun:

And that's even worse. Just look at the ALP leadership merry go round. You don't vote for a Prime Minister because there is no position in the Australian constitution for the Prime Minister.

It is a title of convenience created by the crown in an effort to simplify a system for the commoners. If you look deep enough at the ALP you will see that there are many camps and there would be around 1 in 3 current ALP members that would love to push the current leaders face in the dirt.

What you should be questioning is what they contribute to parliament because there will be some in the Liberal party that think work choices was too soft, some in the Greens that believe 80-90% tax rates and everything between.

Unfortunately the simplification was done because too many people are happy enough in believing things are either black or white, red or blue, Liberal or ALP. There are many more shades.

burke:

Youngish voter:

24 Jul 2013 10:30:48pm

I think the genuine logic your unfolding maybe precisely why, come hill or come valley we need a parliament without parties and filled with nothing but independence. Let people vote be based on their local member.

To reiterate I am know libertarian but I am an eclectic. And the premise that party government means less than ideal democratic big government seems an interesting consideration.

Could we form a post party system of democracy? Theoretical at the moment, maybe, but worth thinking about and getting the intellectual ball rolling...

burke:

Mycal:

24 Jul 2013 6:17:45pm

It may not win Kevin from Heaven the election and it may loose more votes throughout the community than it wins back in Western Sydney but it does reduce the potency of the refugee issue for Labor. It is interesting to note that the best Tony Abbott and the Libs can come up with is "potentially a good idea but it won't work under Labor".

Nornally I'd be happy to see Labor finally stick it to the Libs (makes a change) but this is a race to the bottom and there's no glory in it for anyone.

Marcus:

24 Jul 2013 6:23:28pm

I live the author's use of "many" to describe the handful of protesters. The principled and compassionate left clearly don't have any principles or compassion when it's the dear leader doing the monstering.

As for Adam Brandt, I doubt the Libs will make the mistake of preferencing him again, so he's toast at the next election.

ROB COCKS:

24 Jul 2013 6:29:33pm

The young voters that usually vote for Labor and are opposed to the PNG solution will probably vote for the Greens but Labor will still get their preferences any how .They need to start thinking about how they are going to be affected in the future when they are going to have to endure lower living standards and higher taxes to support Labors massive social spending programs along with poorly planned and costed infrastructure .Never in Australian history have we been in such a precarious position and their is no use comparing us to the failed economies that have a higher debt to GDP ratio .These economies are in this position bought about by successive socialist government policies that Labor is following .Our debt will expand in the future as Labors promises full due .Lower terms of trade with the downturn in mining along with some of the highest wages and property prices and low productivity will ensue that an already high youth unemployment will only go higher.The young voters who in the future will be lucky to have a job will be the ones to pay for Labors mismanagement and desperation to stay in power. At some time the pain will become unbearable and Labor will be voted out.Please think of the your future and don't make it to hard for an incoming government to repair our economy.

rumpole2:

Hyr:

24 Jul 2013 6:34:39pm

As a Gen-Y'er I actually hate that Boomers think they are the same us as, that we are "idealistic brats". Here is the difference, our material circumstances are entirely different. Boomers grew up with people on the moon, good Government protection of industry and markets, a massive job market, huge infrastructure spending and no looming climate change.

Gen Y have grown up in a world that is based on stagnant wages, low employment, credit debt ruling your life and the biggest financial collapse since the 1920s and the greatest wealth inequality since the Victorian era.

It is not the youth who are idealistic, it is the Boomers and those who are drunk on the far-right Finance Capitalism kool-aid who think this system is perfectly fine and is not going to be prone to bigger and bigger crisis and is not destroying the world as we know it ecologically who are the true idealistic ones.

In a age where where we seem to be absolutely paralyzed in the challenge of Climate Change, which has the power to destroy society as we know it, will create millions if not billions of refugees, will sink entire cities, create famine on levels not seen before in human history. You can't blame us "idealistic youth" for feeling something is going horribly wrong.

RegH:

24 Jul 2013 11:16:35pm

Gen-Y is far more affluent than the Baby Boomers were at the same age. Gen-Y look at Boomers who have worked for 40 years and complain that they haven't the same wealth. Further, Gen-Y are enjoying lower interest rates and credit is much easier to get now than it was 40 years ago. The problem is that they expect to have everything "right now". My first house was tiny in comparison with the house being built today and I bought second hand furniture even though I was a graduate working in good jobs. Nor did my generation expect an overseas holiday every year or two. And I would never accuse a self absorbed Gen-Y of being an "idealistic "anything. I don't think you even understand what the term means from what you have said. Gen-Y? Gen-Whinge.

rabbie:

24 Jul 2013 7:25:19pm

Forrest, there is a new saying (one for this century) that goes if you vote Liberal at any time in your life then you are deficient in either heart or brains, possibly both. Judging from most of the conservative posts I have read here, I suspect that they are deficient in both areas.

burke:

reaver:

24 Jul 2013 9:22:32pm

Forrest, the version I'm familiar with is "If you were never a socialist before you were 30, you've got no heart. If you are still socialist after 30, you've got no head", but given the state of the contemporary Labor party it's a case of Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Hyr:

25 Jul 2013 1:49:42am

Actually the saying is from Winston Churchill. A far-right imperialist blowhard who saw anyone himself a champion of the aristocracy and had a absolute hatred of the left wing and saw no problem killing millions of people to keep the Empire strong and the colonies under developed. He may have been a good war time prime minister, but there was a reason they kicked his bloated butt out of office the second the war was done.

You are literally using a quote from someone that felt "insulted" by the fact that Working Class people could have roles in Government.

Forrest Gardener:

25 Jul 2013 7:05:52am

Hyr, the not invented here syndrome is a terribly limiting thing. Believe it or not, your class enemies get things right from time to time. You cannot demolish the wisdom of those words by hating the author.

Joseph B:

25 Jul 2013 12:42:46pm

Incorrect Churchill was never heard saying that. This came from a french man According to research by Mark T. Shirey, citing Nice Guys Finish Seventh: False Phrases, Spurious Sayings, and Familiar Misquotations by Ralph Keyes, 1992, this quote was first uttered by mid-nineteenth century French historian and statesman Fran?ois Guizot when he observed, Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head.

Douglas Norman Trenham:

24 Jul 2013 7:34:33pm

If you were to read my policy document for the forthcoming election you may begin to understand that neither Rudd nor Abbott actually have a choice as they must prepare this country to block its borders entirely in the next few decades. As the earth movement increases in our northern region due to ice turning to water the plates will move and the population will want to go to safer places, such as Australia.

Tax the Churches:

I respect the youth vote as well meaning and duly idealistic. I was young once, indeed never really matured as now in retirement I stayed true to strong leftist views and regularly voted Green.

After nearly 60 years in existence, my idealism is now coupled with profound life experiences. Both here and in a number of other countries.

The Greens' current, excessive focus on this issue is an absolute overkill. Put it simply, they've lost my vote. Let me explain.

One can't sit on two horses (especially ones going in different directions!) with one bottom. One one hand, this land is seen by The Greens as already overpopulated. On the other, they demand of opening the floodgates to a virtually uncontrolled influx of illegal arrivals.

The Greens have lost me on this. Generally, I detest both the ALP and the LNP, but at this moment Kevin Rudd seems to be the only politician dealing with realities in a responsible manner and he has my support.

BTW, I am a former (legal) migrant and I stuck it out to get my chance. It wasn't easy, either. Food for thought.

Cupol:

24 Jul 2013 9:46:42pm

I agree, the greens population policy is anything but green.The reason is that the greens are a lot more a left party than a green one.However, please remember "I make no apology for a big Australia" Kevin as well as "One for mum, one for dad and one for the country" Peter Costello.Pushing the population Ponzi scheme is common to all parties with an increase in population that is now in the 300,000/year.This results in crazy house prices, pathetic roads stuck in traffic as well as huge increases in water (to pay for desalinators) and electricity (to pay for the required grid upgrades).And before some IQ challenged person tries to blame higher electricity prices on the carbon tax, let me add that electricity prices have been raising by 10-20%/year long before any carbon tax, due to the grid upgrades (otherwise known as "gold plating").

Tax the Churches:

25 Jul 2013 8:11:54am

At the time of my arrival the population was 10 million and Noosa was a "one horse": town. Today we are pushing 24 million and on a recent visit to Noosa, I had to rely on the road signs to find my way out.

Cost of living was different, too. My first pay bought me a new fridge, food to stock with and paid my rent. Housing was affordable then.

Now we need extended infrastructure, etc. and someone to pay for it. A compassionate person, I don't begrudge the needy, but importing countless welfare recipients to already overstretched resources while the number of our battlers is forever increasing is not helpful.

"Ideally" increased population would mean more revenue to be spent - on what? Dealing with the needs of - yes - increased population! It's a treadmill, a vicious cycle.

azalon:

ttc - no green has ever said 'overpopulated' (or can you prove me wrong?). what you regularly get from the greens is concern growth is being mismanaged (ie urban sprawl v service delivery etc).

also - what are the realities of the refugee situation? passing the problem down the line to a country barely able to look after its own population? PNG gov is already saying they may move unskilled refugees on to other pacific nations even less capable of supporting their basic needs.

in what way will this work? why do you think aus gov is only setting it up for a year? to buy your vote mate

congratulations though, on being a former legal immigrant. whered you come from and why?

Tax the Churches:

Well azalon. My comment about overpopulation is not learned via the media, but for having been actively involved with green/environmental groups, where it was on the agenda.

The PNG arrangements will deter a number of illegal immigrants, thus allow people doing the right thing a better chance.

Of myself, I was sponsored by the government as I had skills needed at the time. It didn't help that the Immigration Department misplaced my file and nearly a year later I was back at the end of the cue with a new application - after having let go of my previous existence in anticipation.

azalon:

i just said the greens dont campaign on 'overpopulation' ttc. They campaign on sustainable growth.

What you said is exactly what the conservative media is telling you... greens want to open the 'floodgates'

and PNG wont deter the refugees seeking asylum by boat. (and it is LEGAL under the UNHRC to do this). if they are going to risk death, theyll risk PNG and the likely change in gov policy in 12 months which allows them to settle in australia after we finally work out we cant sustain a policy which is neither legal nor practical.

the matter requires a global response to what is a humanitarian issue.

not a regional response to whats whipped up as a security issue to win easy votes.

so, i would say a misplaced file wouldnt quite put you in the same category as people risking their lives of those and their families.. you think your experience, as inconvenient as it was, compares?

Bungee:

24 Jul 2013 8:10:28pm

Everyone has a right to protest, but I can't see the point in protesting one thing without advocating another. This will be seen as emotive, but protesting the new Rudd PNG policy without campaigning for a particular other policy is the same as protesting in support of refugees by holding a banner that said "Please give them a chance to drown, it's what they want".

If the statistics say 1100 refugees have drowned attempting to come to Australia since 2005 then the government must act, indeed they should have acted years ago. That an opposition can tweak the situation into an unnecessarily more tragic one, just to gain the (alas large) xenophobe vote is itself criminal. It's all nice and dandy to stand up in parliament and cry about how morally affronted you are at JG's plan to send unaccompanied minors to ... Malaysia, successfully bring the legislation down (well done, you) and then off home to bed for a good feed and a comfortable night's sleep while 23 million faceless refugees around the world suffer another night of pain, misery, exploitation and suffering.

Any protesting against any policy aimed at reducing this drowning death toll, without advocating an alternative plan, really is false altruism in my opinion.

So here is a plan. Let's protest FOR this. In addition to the current Rudd PNG plan, Australia is to take 100,000 existing registered refugees from existing UN refugee camps around the world, this year and every year until the refugee crisis has been dealt with. Each year we take the 50,000 that have been waiting the longest to be resettled, and the 50,000 that are the most desperate to be resettled (medical grounds, etc), or use some similar system to get to 100,000 number. There are 22 million of us. That's 220 of us to offer refuge to just 1 other human being. I think we could cope. To the xenophobe vote, this would deny all boat travellers the chance of skipping OUR QUEUE. Yes, we just made a queue 100,000 long.

And how about we stop exporting natural resources to countries that don't take settle a similar proportionate number of refugees. China could settle 6 million refugees every year, Japan could settle 580,000 every year. In just 5 years the current refugee crisis would be dealt with.

It's a real plan to deal with a real problem. Any we could pay for it all with a "I'm a disproportionately lucky bugger in world terms" levy.

And we could proudly look back on 2013 as the last year of the "but where is my handout" generation.

Hyr:

25 Jul 2013 1:52:24am

There are better solutions.Everyone is rubbishing the Greens, but they actually have the policy that makes sense and that even Fraser is backing. A regional solution that gets everyone on board to tackle the refugee issue. Here is the bad thing, it can't be used to demonize Refugees for political xenophobic reasons, thus isn't taken seriously.

David Latimer:

25 Jul 2013 3:43:56am

Obviously, it's a dream to expect such a solution. Nevertheless, I can add that Russia's population has decreased by six million since 1991. Ukraine has lost a similar amount. Romania has lost two million. That's something like 14 million empty beds. And these countries are all parties to the refugee conventions.

Alison Cann:

24 Jul 2013 8:14:58pm

Julia,Many young people took to the streets to voice their disapproval of Kevin Rudd's hardline on asylum seekers, but the voters that Kevin Rudd is chasing are more likely the people that have settled here under hardline John Howard.

reaver:

24 Jul 2013 8:32:54pm

There's a very good reason why Labor isn't worried that their new asylum seeker policy isn't attracting young voters like those in the article because those young voters would never consider voting for or preferencing the coalition in the coming election. I doubt that many, if any, of those young asylum seeker advocates will preference the coalition. They will vote Greens and preference Labor, which will have the same effect of just voting for Labor. Why would Labor worry about losing the votes of such people, people who would never vote in a way that would trouble Labor's election prospects?

ru4real:

24 Jul 2013 9:13:57pm

The PNG 'solution' is not ideal by any stretch of the imagination. Tony Abbott's constant sloganeers about 'turning back the boats'. He adopts an attitude of denial of responsibility for the LNP's past policies, (including the Pacific 'solution' and TPVs which left asylum seekers in no-man's-land). And he is reluctant to work with this government to tackle the real issues of the growth in refugee numbers, worldwide, including those making dangerous boat trips, many of which result in disaster and drownings.

In the face of Tony Abbott's intransigence and refusal to negotiate bipartisan alternative solutions, the government is forced to implement new strategies to deter asylum seekers paying for passage in shonky boats. I'm okay about young people, and people of all ages voting for the Greens for their more principled stance on asylum seekers, and to protest against both the major parties for their inhumane policies.

However it's where people direct their preferences which matters most. A preference given to Labor ensures a more equitable distribution of resources, directed towards those Australians who most need support. But a preference to the LNP gives a boost to those who are better off, and widens the gap between those on higher incomes and those at the lower end of the spectrum.

KM:

24 Jul 2013 9:21:32pm

History will judge the most wasteful and detrimental government in Australia belongs to Howard/Costello. They had 10 years of great economic prosperity, sold over 80billion dollars of our assets, and it was all squandered on middle class welfare and given to the rich as tax benefits. They have put us back decades in terms of future prosperity. Thank you Mr Howard for I have benefited enormously from your generosity

JP:

24 Jul 2013 11:10:04pm

In my opinion K Rudd has a lot to answer to, but he was always head and shoulders above Abbott.I was never fully on board (pardon the pun) with either party's stances on those seeking asylum illegally, however as a result of this recent announcement I am now having to reconsider my options.This article's observation that many in attendance at the protest are not your 'standard' protesters is completely accurate. I'm not from a major city but am seriously considering my options for getting in to the city to join others in protest.I will have no faith in the leadership of our country regardless of if we are left with Rudd or Abbott, not feeling particularly confident in the future of our 'lucky' country right now.

casewithscience:

That Guy:

25 Jul 2013 1:37:25am

Nope, he hasn't really burned his bridges with younger voters for the following reasons;

# These highly motivated protesters are a tiny percentile of the younger voters and they will vote for fringe dwelling parties or vote ALP given they won't be able to bring themselves to vote for Tony whose policies are at least as right wing and seemingly more simplistic (turn back the boats). So they'll either squander their vote - or at best help elect a couple of Greens - or vote for him anyway.

# Rudd is far more appealing to younger voters just by dint of how Abbott can be presented as conservative and even if that were not the case it seems unlikely that young voters would be the only ones to NOT get that negative 'gut instinct' about Abbott. And I'm talking irrespective of policy here.

# Lastly a bunch of young people couldn't care less. Last election I worked on I had to explain the voting process to young people - and these were ones motivated enough to register.

James J:

25 Jul 2013 7:28:43am

Sorry... But are these 'youths' going to be protesting when their youth allowance is cut while studying at Uni because the consistent influx of ILLEGAL immigrants is becoming a major financial drain? Its not racism (or any other politically incorrect crap), its called realism. We cant take in everybody, it just isnt realistic.

Alpo:

25 Jul 2013 10:00:58am

James, the real drain on the Government's coffers are those too many people (most of them Liberal supporters, I bet) who evade taxes.... Let's start with them and then move to other areas of public finances.

kevin o'lemon:

tiliqua:

25 Jul 2013 8:49:48am

The area of immigration policy that young voters should be paying attention to is the few hundred thousand other immigrants that the coalition and labor are letting in each year at the behest of their real estate and business masters to keep wages suppressed and housing unaffordable for the young.

Jubal:

25 Jul 2013 9:05:16am

We have 2 x 21-25 yr old's and an 18 yr old( going to vote for first time) in our home. I asked them about this in response to your article. They seem to see right through Mr Rudd and don't trust him one bit, one said "It's just like Big Brother, he has sabotaged all the other housemates and makes promises he never keeps to be popular ". Another said " The ALP seem to just spend, spend, spend to be popular and don't save anything and what they promise is never delivered and if it is then it doesn't look like what they promised and costs heaps more". All 3 said they would NOT be voting ALP but not sure who to vote for yet and all 3 said "is there an election ? Julia said Sept 14 but Rudd has changed it, has he ?. My wife and I will be voting for a good Independent running here, we are heartily sick of being taken for granted by the ALP incumbents. We do not try and influence what our kids do by way of voting in elections but we have taught them the basics of life, the key one here being, if you borrow, you must repay !

M_P:

25 Jul 2013 9:31:14am

What continues to amaze and disgust me is that both parties would rather capitalize on and encourage the entrenched jingoism and racism of segments of the community than educate or LEAD on the issues. It's shameful.

Labor has lost my vote in the past week and I'll be voting Greens - mostly on the back of this issue.

It's not so much the economics of it that matters to me - we are a rich and lucky country - but our politicians' willingness to take advantage of the plight of some of the world's most persecuted people to try and score a few points among rednecks - mostly on the basis of disinformation: spineless, unprincipled, opportunistic, mediocre clowns the lot of them.

Personally - for all our sakes, I think the media should declare a moratorium on any Boat People related coverage for a month - and start reporting on political issues that impact our national interests (defence, health, education). Shame on them for reporting the arrival of every boat as if it's an issue of national importance.

caragabal:

25 Jul 2013 10:12:01am

Our debt is still going to be the highest this country has ever seen. The States largely do not have AAA rating largely because Labor left them in a mess, at local government level most are basket cases and again you will see that where politics has encroached at this level the debt is largely a legacy of Labor councils. The other point is the three rating agencies got most of their ratings wrong. Before the GFC they were encouraging everyone to borrow because they had AAA ratings everywhere. Then when it hit the fan the rating agencies are left with 8 countries on AAA. the cycle of when they change this rating comes about every few years and Australia is already on a watch level. We still have not been told how Gonski and NDIS are to be paid for and the debt as admitted at estimates hearings recently will exceed $340 billion which is over the $300 billion approved level within 18 months. Swan was telling porkies and was found out and this was before we took the hit on the carbon tax which it seems was not being used to 'save the world' but merely being used to block up the fiscal holes that the mining tax has left behind. Which Government either Labor or Liberal in the past one hundred years has invented a tax that raised nothing? Which government then went on to spend this 'mythical' mining tax revenues before it actually hit a bank account.The Rudd Gillard Governments. If the Government has done so well the question is why have we replaced the Prime Minister and the Treasurer? What were they doing so wrong? Perhaps some within Labor were also seeing a problem with Swan in particular. And as for the Snowy Mountain Scheme, yes NSW Labor and Vic Labor at the time wanted the dam built for different reasons, one for water and one for electricity. They blued about it until Federal Labor stepped in and said okay the Feds will do it to stop the bickering. Then in 1949 Menzies arrived and built the bloody thing. Because if Labor had taken charged of it the project would have been a shambles. It is like the NBN promised to be complete by 2014 now it is 'projected' to be finished by 2021 at the earliest under Labor. Yes they may have the dreams but when it comes down to getting your hands dirty and building the NBN they have made a great shambles of it. In my area we were told NBN would be here by September 2012, now here we are in August 2013 and they are still telling us it will be soon, Xmas is coming too. The only thing Rudd can be happy about is that Costello set up the funds to pay for the two ex PMS lerks and perks for the rest of their lives. We have the Public Servants pension fund at least covered which is something the Spanish, Greeks etc did not have. That is one major reason for our AAA status folks.

Alpo:

25 Jul 2013 2:14:53pm

"If the Government has done so well the question is why have we replaced the Prime Minister and the Treasurer?".... Because the Media spread paranoia among a sufficient number of voters to affect the results of the opinion polls which, in themselves, may also be used as tools of propaganda when they are published too far away from an election.... It's time to grow up in this country. Voters are too na?ve, too easily manipulated.

Greg:

25 Jul 2013 10:53:01am

Okay, Patrick Wright doesn't like the way that Rudd and the Labor Party have caved in to Western Sydney populism. Neither do I. But who is he going to vote for, down in the preferences, where it counts? Tony Abbott's even harder line, and his madcap "military-led" operation? This time around the ultimate choice may be between two evils, but the ALP policy is the lesser of the two. In their determination to look "even more determined", the Libs are starting to look seriously unbalanced.

Tyson:

25 Jul 2013 10:55:42am

I am a young man of 23 years of age. I will not be voting for the ALP and definitely not for the socialist Greens, and nor would most, if not all, my friends of similar age. My vote will be going to the DLP and will fall to the Liberals through my own preferences. One of the first things I ask someone before talking politics is asking if they voted. If they didnt I explain I dont want to hear them whinge about the government if they didnt even vote. Everyone knows your not going to get a party that supports everything you do, but you should vote for the party most inline with your values.

Valentine:

Look At the Arts Kids:

25 Jul 2013 11:22:52am

Let's be very specific. He's lost the vote of young Arts students and/or other "I can save the world" idiots. He's lost the vote of the obnoxious vocal students that repulse most people. The same ones you'll see consuming valuable oxygen, campainging around campus. These students, thank God, are a minority. They're also the same morons who will now vote for the Greens, who as we all now, have policies guaranteed to drive the country into recession.

Joseph B:

25 Jul 2013 11:53:47am

The article assumes all young people are radical leftist. Many just want a good job like everyone else and those young people will tend to vote more conservative.

Rudd's PNG assylum seeker policy is a shrewd political move. He might lose a few left votes to the Greens, but they will all preference labor and he might pick up a few swinging voters that could mean an election victory.

kevinS:

The hate comments, the majority of all comments so far, shows just how low we have reached as a nation.

Mr Abbott and his esteemed entourage should be proud, smug delighted with the knowledge that they will enter the annals of history.

I was in Sydney on business some weeks back. That business also took me to the West and South West of Sydney. On the Thursday and Friday night, I struggled to get into any half way decent eatery because I had not booked ahead. I learned my lesson for the Saturday night, had a booking at an otherwise packed restaurant and passed numerous over venues and eateries that were packed too. No different to Sydney's Eastern and Northern Suburbs and in the city too. Even in Tamworth, a colleague bemoaned the loss of local jobs to immigrants that have flooded in to Tamworth. I couldn't spot the 'overun with immigrants' that I was been told about. In Hobart, I hear the same moans and groans about how tough life is, how we are being overrun and the vehemence to target groups as the blame. Packed coffee shops, bistros and a months booking to get into my favourite restaurant was telling a different story as well.

Joe Hockey is right about the 'culture of entitlement'. It begins with our most prominent politicians, is prevalent in our corporates and business and in the public as well. Shame he hasn't addressed a London audience about our 'culture of hate' as well.

Bob G:

25 Jul 2013 1:56:02pm

Kevin Rudd is the arsonist of his own demise. He has burnt more bridges, colleagues and policies with own personal agendas. To question whether he has burnt the younger voters really does not matter. The destruction trail he has left us all has already cast the die.

Daniel:

25 Jul 2013 2:00:08pm

I think to some extent the asylum seeker debate has been informed by upper middle class intellectual types who focus solely on the moral and ethical principles of human rights and compassion without taking into account any other factors whatsoever, and I suspect part of that is because some of them have maybe never actually seen a refugee in the flesh. I live in Sunshine 3020, which is where a lot of refugees end up. They are good people and as far as I am concerned more than welcome. They have added to the amazing diversity of our suburb. However, the surge in the population puts an evident strain on infrastructure and social services. I'm totally in favour of welcoming refugees into our community as long as it's backed up with public funding for infrastructure & services. This isn't happening. Our buses and trains are running beyond capacity, rental prices are through the roof due to a lack of housing, unemployed young people wander the streets with nothing to do and in povert, and overburdened charities are left to clean up the mess. If you're a well meaning academic living in Kew you don't see this stuff because it's obviously not where refugees end up as jno refugee could ever afford to rent even a shed in Kew or Balwyn. For the same reason I have a feeling that's why Western Sydney voters are pissed off.

Cherna:

25 Jul 2013 2:49:04pm

The reason why we started off seeing kids of 16 to 21 surrounding good all Kev is because they were only 10-15 years old when Rudd07 was stumbling around a to the point of incompetence so great that mature aged voters downgraded Labor down to 30% in approval. And, and for the very same reasons of incompetence, in 2010 Labor decided to get rid of Rudd07 by political assassination...

In general few kids of 12 to 15 follow politics to any degree so its most likely that they had no formative view of Rudd during his period of incompetence.

With the recycling of Rudd13 their acceptance of this round faced 'Tintin' and his aspirations were not clouded by all the negatives we've experienced through him and through 6 terrible years of Labor in general.

For the 'kids' Rudd seemed to fit the mould, at least for a little while, with his aspirational views and comments.

This however lasted until Rudd's PNG solution. For the ideological nature of most young the cruelty of the reform proposed by Rud13 was unacceptable and repugnant and they turned away from him in droves...

If Rudd continues to push the PNG solution with additional cruelty he will loose a larger block of the young who will probably vote Greens...

In less than 3 weeks Rudd was able to show the young ones that he wasn't their 'Tintin' hero and if that's what they wanted best they look elsewhere. Mistake by Rudd? Probably but then they would have had to learn the lesson of politics at some point anyway - it's just that Rudd hastened, and shortened, the period for them.

For me a failed recycled leader is no substitute for some-one new and competent... I won't be voting Labor nor will I vote Greens nor will I be voting Independent after the mess of the last 6 years of Labor.

Dpete:

25 Jul 2013 3:01:47pm

People aged under 30 do not vote in a bloc, they are just as politically fractured as the rest of the population. As the article suggests, new Labor policy is directed specifically at Western Sydney with the added bonus of deflating the Liberals on that issue right across the age spectrum. Disillusioned Labor voters won't go Liberal anyway so all to gain and nothing to lose - except one's soul perhaps.